To effectively argue weather or not a group is Christian, a criteria should be established as to what makes one a Christian. To be a Christian one must have a faith in Jesus Christ, Believe that he is the Son of God, and believe that it is only through Jesus Christ one can be saved.

The following is quote from the Book of Mormon

2 Nephi:25 verse 26 "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins."

There are many verses of scripture from the Book Of Mormon that claim the divinity of Christ and point to him as the way to eternal life.

This is my first debate, I could produce more information and sources to support my argument. However for this first portion, I want to see if anyone would seriously oppose my position on this. I look forward to the debate.

My opponent has laid out the following criteria for one to be a Christian:

"To be a Christian one must have a faith in Jesus Christ, Believe that he is the Son of God, and believe that it is only through Jesus Christ one can be saved."

I agree to this criteria, wherein he lays out the first conditional statement to be that the person has faith in Jesus Christ. My contention in this argument will be that Mormons believe very different things about Jesus Christ, such that it would be tantamount to a different person.

To introduce this argument, I will offer an analogy. Suppose I was describing my wife to you, and I went on about how lovely her red hair was. Or how endearing her freckles became once enhanced by the summer sun. That one look from her bright blue eyes could entrance one for hours. Then, upon finishing this description you came to see that she didn't fit any of the descriptions I provided. That she had blonde hair instead of red, no freckles, and green eyes. I believe one would have to conclude that this was a different person.

My argument now follows:

1) The prophet Gordon B. Hinkley quite explicitly stated that he believed in a different Christ.

"No I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the dispensation of the fullness of times."[1]

He went on to further say:

"He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'"[2]

This "Jesus Christ" unique to the Mormon faith is said to have appeared to Joesph Smith in 1820. My next part of the argument is to substantiate that this "Jesus Christ" described by the Mormon prophet did not actually appear to Joesph Smith, but was more likely a fabricated story. This would therefore conclude us to believe that this new conception of Jesus Christ is false, and lead one to believe that Mormons are not actually Christians.

Argument #2 l Historicity and Validity of Joesph's Vision

My next contention is that the various changes to the account of Joesph Smith's first vision leads one to believe that the account was more likely than not fabricated.

1) The dates of the vision often changed as the account evolved.
Evidence:
A) The account was first dated to be in 1821, after his 16th birthday.[3]
B) The account was later changed to to sometimes in 1822, after he was 17.[4]
C) The canonized version of the first vision described the event as taking place in the early spring of 1820.[5]

Other notable evidence is that the canonized account says that they had already been a member of the Presbyterian Church prior to the first vision, but a separate account says that they joined the church following the death of his brother. [see 4]

These changes are part of a pattern in which the contents of the first vision evolved over time, and thus should be held in high suspicion.

2) The content and personages that visited him changed drastically over time.[6]
Evidence:
A) The first account in 1832 by Joesph Smith describes the following details:
Personage: "The Lord"
Message Synopsis: ""Thy sins are forgiven thee"; the "world lieth in sin" and has "turned aside from the gospel"; and a brief apocalyptic note"
B) The second account in 1835 by Joesph Smith describes the following details:
Personages: Two personages, and "many angels"
Message Synopsis: "Thy sins are forgiven thee" and Jesus is the "son of God"
C) The third account in 1838/1839 noted to a scribe, describes the following details:
Personages: Two personages appear, and one says "This is my beloved Son, hear him".
Message Synopsis: The personages tell Smith that all churches are corrupt.
D) The fourth account listed in the "Times and Seasons" in March 1842, describes the following details:
Personages: Two personages appear, and one says "This is my beloved Son, hear him".
Message Synopsis: The personages tell Smith that all churches are corrupt.

The notable feature about the last two accounts completely differ in the content of what these personages (or personage) convey. The first two accounts are primarily about a personal revival, where Joesph's sins are forgiven. These accounts also are different as the first one only lists "The Lord" as being present, while the second has an addition of another person and many angels. It is not until the late 1830s that the concept that these personages communicated the corruption of all present churches.

This seems to be clear evidence of Joesph Smith himself changing the details of this vision to such a degree so as to leave an objective observer with the conclusion that this vision was in fact a fabrication. None of the details are spoken of prior to 1832, and the subsequent accounts of the vision contradict and attempt to supersede his initial account.

As the entire narrative of Joesph Smith's discoveries are based on this lie, one can easily come to the conclusion that the entirety of Joesph Smith's revelations are also untrue. And on this basis, the Jesus Christ described by Gordon B. Hinkley is not really the true Jesus Christ.

It is on the basis of this argument, that I submit that Mormons are not Christians, but rather have chosen to follow a fabricated idea of Jesus Christ, made up by Joesph Smith.

I also reserve the right to post additional arguments in future rounds as Pro did not clarify the structure of the debate.

First off, I would like to quickly address your second argument concerning the "historicity and validity of Joseph"s vision."
whether Joseph"s vision is real or fake has absolutely nothing to do with Mormons being or not being Christians. Considering that there are many who have debated and continue to debate the historicity and validity of Jesus Christ"s life and have concluded similar things as you have about Joseph"s story.

For example:
"Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][7][8] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11]"

Even within the Bible itself there exists inconsistency concerning Christ"s life.
The following link is to an article that shows discrepancies between the four gospels.http://atheism.about.com...

Even if as you concluded "that the various changes to the account of Joesph Smith's first vision leads one to believe that the account was more likely than not fabricated." It is not a requirement to be a Christian to not lie. It is not a requirement to be a Christian to not make up stories. Does not Paul in the New Testament state "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Romans 3:23) There would be no Christians if that was a requirement. Joseph"s account of his vision does not affect the fact that Mormons believe in the Jesus Christ.

No I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the dispensation of the fullness of times."

President Hinckley is referring to the concept of Christ that has developed in the centuries since the Nicene Creed was formed"He is saying that we do not believe in non-Biblical creeds. This statement is quite correct: Latter-day Saints do not have some of the same beliefs about Christ that other Christian churches do. He is not saying that we do not believe in the Biblical Christ. In fact, the reason that Latter-day Saints do not accept these creeds is because they are non-Biblical. President Hinckley continued (with words usually omitted by critics):
Am I Christian? Of course I am. I believe in Christ. I talk of Christ. I pray through Christ. I'm trying to follow Him and live His gospel in my life."

Again the Criteria for being a Christian is "" one must have a faith in Jesus Christ, Believe that he is the Son of God, and believe that it is only through Jesus Christ one can be saved." The following is a quote from Jeffrey R. Holland. (a member of the LDS quorum of the twelve apostles)

"I testify that Jesus Christ is the literal, living Son of our literal, living God. This Jesus is our Savior and Redeemer who, under the guidance of the Father, was the Creator of heaven and earth and all things that in them are. I bear witness that He was born of a virgin mother, that in His lifetime He performed mighty miracles observed by legions of His disciples and by His enemies as well. I testify that He had power over death because He was divine but that He willingly subjected Himself to death for our sake because for a period of time He was also mortal. I declare that in His willing submission to death He took upon Himself the sins of the world, paying an infinite price for every sorrow and sickness, every heartache and unhappiness from Adam to the end of the world. In doing so He conquered both the grave physically and hell spiritually and set the human family free. I bear witness that He was literally resurrected from the tomb and, after ascending to His Father to complete the process of that Resurrection, He appeared, repeatedly, to hundreds of disciples in the Old World and in the New. I know He is the Holy One of Israel, the Messiah who will one day come again in final glory, to reign on earth as Lord of lords and King of kings. I know that there is no other name given under heaven whereby a man can be saved and that only by relying wholly upon His merits, mercy, and everlasting grace19 can we gain eternal life."

In my opponents argument he provided an analogy. In response to that analogy I contend that often times people know the same person and would describe them drastically differently. For example: My Boss might describe me as dutiful, quiet, or very reserved. Giving the impression that I may be shy, Where as my personal friends may describe me as loud and obnoxious. Do
these different descriptions constitute different people? Of course not.

People have different opinions of Christ, and yet can still have faith in him. Since doctrinal differences do exists between Methodist and Baptist, between Pentecostal and Lutheran, and so on. Doctrinal differences cannot be what makes one a Christian. Even if that doctrine does address Jesus Christ, those differences cannot constitute someone as a Christian or non Christian

"To be a Christian one must have a faith in Jesus Christ, Believe that he is the Son of God, and believe that it is only through Jesus Christ one can be saved."

My opponent has an interesting response to my remarks concerning Joesph Smith's First Vision, in that he almost concedes the point.

He responded in two ways that I can observe, 1) an appeal to confusion about the historicity of events with Jesus life, 2) that making up a story doesn't make one, not a Christian.

In regards to his first response, I will agree that there is indeed some confusion on the events of Jesus' life. For instance, we have interpolations such as the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-John 8:11), or textual criticism around other various sayings. What I don't see is how this gets Mormons off the hook on behalf of their inventive founder. Jesus is a historical figure who lived thousands of years ago, and we have a limited amount of information about these events so as to leave experts pretty well divided.

This is not so with Joesph Smith, who lived a relatively short time ago. These accounts are also not spoken of about him, but rather are written down himself. Since Joesph Smith's life is well documented, we can discover a great deal more about his character. Therefore, I contend that my opponents response does not address the fundamental issue. That if the basis upon which the Mormon Church is founded is a lie, then their conception of Christ and status as a Christian cannot be substantiated.

The second response that my opponent made was very interesting. It in a sense granted for the sake of argument that Joesph Smith was a liar, but that this wouldn't disqualify him as being a Christian/Prophet. There are some big problems with granting this for a Mormon.

1) The First Vision Account from Joesph Smith is essential in order to substantiate Smith's entire reasoning for seeking to found a new church. That he was told by God (and Jesus), that all the other churches were an abomination, and that he had been set apart to start a new one, or rather restore the truth of the gospel. Without this first account, the rest of the narrative that Smith portrays is groundless and false.

2) The account is not just something in the Narrative, it has been Canonized by the Mormon church in the Joesph Smith History Chapter 1.[1] This would then set a precedent that portions of Canonized documents from the prophets may be falsified information. The entire addition of the Mormon Canon (BoM, PoGP, D&C) can be quickly refuted on these grounds.

Time constrains me from breaking down every single one of Joesph Smith's falsehoods, but this one is so central and clear that no other needs to be listed.

Rebuttal #2 l Gordon B. Hinkley Quote

In Gordon B. Hinkley's quote, he explicitly states that they believe and follow a different Christ.

He didn't say that Mormon's simply believe different things about the same Christ, but rather that they reject the "traditional Christ" for the Christ who has been revealed in this present dispensation.

If Christ wasn't revealed in this present dispensation, and Joesph Smith was a liar. Then the Christ of the Mormon church is not real, but rather a shadow of the one presented in the Bible. Based upon the Biblical character, but drastically altered so as to be independent and exclusive to Mormonism. In other words, either Mormons are the only Christians, or they are not Christians at all, since they are speaking of two different Christs. If someone lies about meeting Christ in person, then makes up a new gospel on account of that meeting, which then supersedes all of history, I do not see how such a person can be designated by that historical distinction of "Christian."

Rebuttal #3 l The Nature of Jesus Christ and More

Mormons believe some things about Jesus that are so different so as to constitute two distinct individuals. For instance, the historical conception and Biblical conception of Jesus is that he is an eternal being, having always existed as Deity.

In Mormon doctrine this is not the case, but rather Jesus is a literally begotten son of God, along with his brother Lucifer. He then is exalted to be a God. This conception of henotheism within Mormonism is one of the primary reasons that Mormons are not Christians, as it contradicts not only Scripture, but historical Christianity as far back as it can be ascertained. The findings the Council of Nicaea were not a new discovery or invention, but rather the orthodox response to the heresy of Arianism.

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.[2]

This text presents many problems for Mormonism. First, it negates the possibility of another God being formed before or after Yahweh (or Jehovah as Mormons understand the tetragrammaton name of God). Second, Mormons interpret the name Jehovah as being unique to Jesus, while Elohim being God the Father. This would then be understood that before Jesus, no other God was formed before or after. This would lead one to conclude that Jesus was eternal, yet not even the Father in Mormonism is eternal but too was once a man who became an exalted God.[3]

In response to the analogy, my opponent offered a different analogy that does not convey the same message as mine. In a sense, he offered a weaker analogy in order to refute the one I presented. Rather than going off of distinct and unchangeable physical features, he went off of characteristics that can only be perceived. This is not the analogy I presented, nor is it representative of my argument in that there are huge distinct differences in the historical conception of Christ and the Mormon view, such to the degree that even your prophets conclude that it is a different Christ.

Therefore, if the founder of the Mormon faith has presented a falsehood as the foundation of the faith, then the conception of Christ must also be false. This would mean that Mormon's follow a different and false Christ, making them not Christians.

Thank you to the True Scotsman for accepting this debate and for being very respectful.

My opponent in reference to Joseph Smith"s First Vision says "Without this first account, the rest of the narrative that Smith portrays is groundless and false."

My resolve in this debate is to prove that Mormons are Christian. This does not include proving Mormonism true, or Christianity for that matter. My burden of prove is not to prove that Joseph did see Jesus Christ. It is also not to prove that Christ was resurrected. My burden of proof is just to prove that Mormons have faith in Jesus Christ, believe he is the son of God and believe that he is the only way one can be saved.

My opponent goes on to conclude "If someone lies about meeting Christ in person, then makes up a new gospel on account of that meeting, which then supersedes all of history, I do not see how such a person can be designated by that historical distinction of "Christian."

Consider:

Acts 9: "4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:.."
(Courtesy of King James Version.)

Saul who becomes Paul claims to have seen the resurrected Christ as Joseph does, and yet there is no historical evidence of this occurrence. Yet "Christians follow the words of Paul who then teaches through most of the rest of the New Testament things that are not recorded as Christ teaching. When did Christ teach the symbolism of baptism as Paul does in Romans 6: 3-5. When did Christ teach that our bodies are temples as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 6: 19-20

Following my opponents logic, being that Paul cant prove seeing Christ and taught things that Christ himself did not specifically say, Paul must not be a Christian. If that"s true how can Christians believe in the majority of the New Testament which is written at the hand of Paul.

My opponent referred again to the quote from Gordon B. Hinkley. Hinkley went on to say "Am I Christian? Of course I am. I believe in Christ. I talk of Christ. I pray through Christ. I'm trying to follow Him and live His gospel in my life." If Gordon B. Hinkley is distinguishing himself from other Christians by saying that he does not believe in the "traditional" Christ and then identifies himself as a Christian. It seems reasonable to assume that Gordon is not implying a different person.
(http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com...)

My opponent concluded "He didn't say that Mormon's simply believe different things about the same Christ, but rather that they reject the "traditional Christ" for the Christ who has been revealed in this present dispensation."

I submit the definition of tradition from dictionary.com

Tradition "a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting:"

Gordon B. Hinkley is stating that he does not believe the long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting in relation to the same Jesus Christ. Not that he believes in a different Christ.

My opponents third argument is to establish the differences between Mormons and beliefs that he presumes all Christians agree.
Many Christian denominations believe different things about Christ.

The following link provides a table showing show Christian denominations and their differences.

Again I say "People have different opinions of Christ, and yet can still have faith in him. Since doctrinal differences do exists between Methodist and Baptist, between Pentecostal and Lutheran, and so on. Doctrinal differences cannot be what makes one a Christian. Even if that doctrine does address Jesus Christ, those differences cannot constitute someone as a Christian or non Christian"

Conclusion:

From the Book of Mormon.

Mosiah 3:12,17
12:"".. For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ."
17:" And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent."

I appreciate the kind words, and I have definitely enjoyed the debate. I actually have a deep appreciation and affection for Mormons, and used to be one myself. The views I have defended in this debate, do not necessarily represent my general attitude towards most Mormons.

Now to conclude the debate.

Final Rebuttal #1 l Joesph Smith's Christ

I think it should just generally outline my argument, so that the voters can understand my approach.

1) Mormons believe vastly different things about Jesus. (His nature, him being a created being, his commands, his Father, him having a brother who is Satan, him appearing to Joesph Smith, etc.)
2) The teachings and accounts presented by Joesph Smith are demonstrably fabricated and false.
3) Mormons are not Christians, as they follow a different Christ made up by Joesph Smith.

Simply saying that Mormons follow Christ, does not mean that they follow the same Christ described in the Bible and of history. Being a Christian is a historical distinction, and if a group comes along and reinvents Christ, they have a high burden of proof to demonstrate that they are actually Christians.

My opponent attempts to counter this by citing the Apostle Paul. This argument fails for a few reasons.

1) While we cannot verify beyond his testimony that he had a vision of Christ, it is clear that he was a person who had a great awakening. He certainly was a Pharisee and persecutor of the Church, but later came to put his faith in Jesus as the risen Messiah. One can submit that his testimony seems to be fit quite well with his radical and unexpected conversion.

2) Paul's teachings didn't actually contradict Jesus' teachings. Indeed, Jesus taught that we needed to be "born anew" in the Gospel of John, which Paul describes slightly differently. In that this "new life" is gained in Christ himself, being joined to his resurrection life. As Peter even says, "According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"[1] The being "born again" or "born anew" was through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Which this is precisely Paul's teaching, that through the resurrection we gain newness of life.

3) Paul was verified an Apostle by the other 12 Apostles, even those who walked with Jesus during his ministry.

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.[2]

This text written by Peter, denotes Paul not only being a beloved brother, but that he had been given wisdom from God and that his letters were Scriptures. Joesph Smith does not have this authentication, but rather made up yet another account of him being ordained by Peter, James, and John.[3]

Final Rebuttal #2 l Gordon B. Hinkley Quote

Let's look at the quote again.

"No I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the dispensation of the fullness of times."

You said:
"Gordon B. Hinkley is stating that he does not believe the long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting in relation to the same Jesus Christ. Not that he believes in a different Christ."

This is expressly not the case. Gordon B. Hinkley no where states that he is talking about the same Christ, but rather makes a distinction between the two Christs. He doesn't talk about the "traditional Christ" of whom they [Christians] speak, but the Christ he talks about has been revealed (according to Mormons) in this the dispensation of the fullness of times (the present era).

The Jesus Hinkley speaks of then, is the one who was spoken of by Joesph Smith, who allegedly was revealed to him. From the historical evidence, we can see the evolution in his account and can conclude that this is much more likely a spiritual experience that he had later in life, that he reinvented to aid his story about founding a Church.

Since the "Christ" of whom the prophets of Mormonism speak cannot be true, then I will submit that they are not Christians. This description would be misleading and would seem to distract from the clear and major differences that they share with historical Christians.

Even Paul, warned of such deceptions where certain people he called "super-apostles" would present different gospels and a different Jesus.

"For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received,"[4]

And here:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. [5]

Within the Christian tradition, yes even the Scripture itself, we see distinctions made upon what a person believes. The groups you described may believe slightly different things regarding secondary issues. However, when it comes to primary issues such as the nature of Jesus, they all agree, even if you add Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox to that list. Mormons believe what has historically been rejected by Christians, almost a type of Arianism where Jesus eventually becomes a God. All the ecumenical councils outright reject and name their doctrines as heresy.

It is a different gospel, which they call the "restored gospel," but has no root in the ancient Scriptures. According to Paul, anyone who offers another gospel, even if offered by an "angel" as Mormonism was, then that person is accursed.

Conclusion:

Mormonism may seem quite similar to historical Christianity to someone unfamiliar with the doctrinal differences. Yet the problem that usually comes up regards semantics. Mormons and Christians use the same terms to describe totally different things, chief among them being the name of Christ.

It also is presented primarily through the Book of Mormon, which in a nut shell is 19th Century Protestantism with a works based salvation, and written is bad King James Version English. This book has almost no unique Mormon doctrines, such as the nature of Jesus, the exaltation of man to God, the priesthood, the temple, etc.

In a sense, one is initiated on account of the Book of Mormon, then discover through the Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and other modern revelations that Mormons have some very distinct doctrinal differences from other Christians.

Mormons are not Christians because they believe very different things about Christ.
1) A Christ who was created, born a "spirit baby," to an exalted God of flesh and blood.
2) That Christ was a spirit brother to Lucifer, who is Satan.
3) That Christ became a God, though is less than ontologically equal with the Father.
4) That Christ was not born of the Holy Spirit, but was naturally conceived by the Father sleeping with Mary.
"When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it,"[6]
5) That Christ's atonement for sin was primarily done in the Garden of Gethsemane.
6) That Christ visited a Jewish/American tribe after his resurrection.
Etc.

Chief among these reasons is the difference in his nature, that he is not of the same substance and ontologically equal to the Father. That he is a created being and brother of Satan. These doctrines are heresies in the Christian Church.

THE MORMON JESUS- A Different Jesus
Simply believing in someone named Jesus will not solve the issue for Mormons because " as the apostle Paul warns in 2 Corinthians 11:4 " there are some who preach a different Jesus. For example, while the Bible teaches that Jesus has always existed as God (John 1:1), Mormons see Jesus as someone who worked His way up to godhood. In fact, to Mormons, Jesus is merely one in purpose with God the Father; whereas the Bible declares that the Father and the Son are also one in essence (cf. Phil. 2:6) " that they are both equally God and members of the Holy Trinity.

THE MORMON JESUS- Doctrine Twisting
This leads me to what is perhaps the most problematic matter facing Mormons with regard to their view of Christ. You see, in their attempt to evade charges of polytheism " which, of course, is the belief in or worship of more than one god " Mormons end up prohibiting prayer to Jesus. Mormons confess that they believe in the existence of many gods but pray only to God the Father. Well, in light of the Bible"s explicit command to pray to Jehovah (cf. Deut. 4:7; 2 Chron. 7:14; Pss. 5:2; 32:6; Jer. 27:7, 12), it"s simply incredible that Mormons refuse to pray to Jesus while yet acknowledging Him to be Jehovah! In addition, let me point you to passages like John 14:14 and Romans 10:12 which demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that believers ought to pray to Jesus.

THE MORMON JESUS- Not the Jesus of the Bible
Mormons can claim to believe in Jesus all they want, but it"s apparent from their teachings that the Jesus they profess is definitely not the Jesus of the Bible. The truth is they worship another Jesus, proclaim another gospel, and teach the skin of the truth stuffed with a lie. Ultimately, all cults and world religions, in one way or another, compromise the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

the Morman Jesus is not Jesus of the Bible. Mormons are not Christians. Jesus Christ of the Bible is God the Creator who had no beginning and has no end. Moomnaism is a cult, founded by Joseph Smith who claimed to get his crazy ideas from some gold plates that came from heaven but he lost them somewhere.........big solid gold plates, lost? in Utah? sure. If you want to make a lot of money, start a religion. It worked for Ron Hubbard, Bhuddah, and Confusioius.